I believe you are right in your views; some listeners are more inclined/sensitive towards tonally accurate reproduction, or certainly a tonal/timbral balance that differs from that of the less damped designs. I’d guess the Harbeth/more damped diaphragm design as-a-whole, many things being equal, to reflect a more authentic timbre, but it’s difficult to assess the myriad of effects with different implementations, and how this affects the sonic outcome and ones ability to single out individual parameters such as diaphragm materials and their sonic implications. Wouldn’t aluminium, though being relatively rigid, have different, more damped properties than beryllium or titanium? JBL, if I’m not incorrect, with their pro segment speakers converted to titanium (from aluminium) for one primary reason alone: durability. A (very) secondary reason perhaps being frequency extension. However, in all this it would still seem sonic considerations to have been close to non-existing, and while I won’t claim this to be the case in the more hifi-oriented realm of driver development it would seem the more careful "hands in the dirt" sonic assessment, at least towards live acoustic sources (incl. voices), is less an agenda than theoretical advancements in particular areas as well as (a limited range of) measurements, such as frequency extension.
I believe many people are able to hear what you describe with metal or rigid material versus damped materials. Equally there are others who dont seem to pick up on it or be sensitive to it. Maybe some of us listen more closely to timbre (the tonal content and the way it decays). The rigid drivers measure very well and have a wider usable bandwidth which gives the speaker better frequency range specs - so they have strong merits. My point is that this extra bandwidth comes at a price - the in band performance is not as clean on a waterfall. I still have not seen a better measurement on a tweeter than the Excel Millenium soft dome made with a doped sonolex fabric - Harbeth use this tweeter and Harbeth midrange is a damped design too that also just happens to be highly regarded for mid range quality - of course I believe this is no cooincidence and that transducer design and material is very important.
Personally I don’t like the splashy sound of drivers of this type design (metal and highly rigid). They have great bandwidth that makes for impressive measured performance but I find the sound is "splashy" due to the way rigid materials vibrate naturally (like a bell vibrates and rings after an initial hit but a damped material like a pillow does not).
Splashy is a good term - as in when you splash the water it makes a lot of sound after the initial splash. Acoustically this means the driver imparts its own sound to the timbre whereas an internally damped cone material is much more inert - contributing much less coloration after the sound stops.
I prefer damped designs even though they tend to have a narrower bandwidth and can suffer from breakup and therefore require more careful design and larger more expensive drive motors. Damped cones sound much more natural and faithful to the original tone/timbre of recorded instruments even if they are not as linear on a speaker frequency plot. ...
"Splashy" may indeed be a fitting term here. I’ve heard someone use the exact same term describing his impressions of the sound from a pair of JBL Project Everest DD66000, which uses beryllium diaphragms for both the midrange and tweeter. Some two weeks ago I had another listen to the JBL K2 S9900’s (last time before that I heard them was about 5 years ago), and this time around my personal reference for the last two years has been horn speakers using a composite diaphragm (apparently paper-based) for the midrange, and polyester ditto for the tweeter. I know there are many variables other than diaphragm materials here, but listening to the JBL’s this time around (which use coated magnesium diaphragms for the midrange) gave the impression of a slightly hollow, out-of-focus, and rather bleached/grey-ish midrange that further lacked presence and substance (we played a lot a different music, and the associating gear was top shelf Mark Levinson). I can honestly say that I much prefer not only the midrange but the overall sound of my own horn speakers, which are more refined, coherent and enveloping (bear in mind my speakers are augmented with a sub, but that doesn’t change the fundamental observation here) - and that at about a quarter of the price compared to the JBL’s (about a third incl. the sub). I was actually astounded to hear this, and it made me think about the importance of the diaphragm material - in addition to the material of the horn itself, and its geometry (and even further, of course, the x-over); looking at the JBL’s (both the K2’s and Everest’s) gives the impression of design aesthetics being a core parameter, so much indeed that it makes you wonder the nature of the midrange horn flares used (what’s even the horn geometry used here?), and how much they’re formed on the basis of a chosen (visual) design more than a consideration of the horn flare itself that would then dictate design aesthetics (i.e.: form follows function). I’m by no means an expert in horn geometry, not even close, but nevertheless that’s the sensation I’m getting here. I’m also wondering the benefit of the extended frequency span (upwards) using exotic metal as diaphragm material, as has been already suggested, when damping properties are negatively impacted - if at all truly a negative property in regards to sonic outcome. Sorry for the detour..
Kosst is not very knowledgeable but he will give opinion without fact and without experience if you ask him to prove his BS reply’s he has nothing but weak insults. Guys a joke ignore his trolls.
You don’t pay me so I have no obligation to meet any sort of criteria. Your claim that mega buck speakers are superior. Back that up first, then I’ll consider playing your game. Oh, no, I won’t.
Just look at the waterfall, distortion and compression data. Micromotor tweets suck. Do your own research.
JA often says things completely at odd with his own measurements. At the very least, JA and I are in agreement that all the Focal tweeters are very similar performers, regardless of price. You may call that good, I do not. As far as I am concerned, the Focal tweeters are mediocre, and the high end speakers are not actually better.
The past Magico tweeter (which I posted model data) and the current Be/Graphene tweeter OTOH however is a really stellar performer. Sounds and measures far better than anything out of Focal and B&W on and off axis. (personally I find them tuned too bright, but still stellar sounding!) So, there’s a great example, as are several examples I have shown you before. If you want me to do more research for you you’d have to meet my hourly rates, and I would have to care.
I have given you specific examples of driers and speaker makers and models of what I consider significantly better. That is all you get.
On the other hand, as far as hobby talking, I put Golden Ears, Focal and B&W on one camp, with Magico, Gryphon and YG on another. If you think the previous set is any good at all, switch to the latter. and compare.
I read a recent story about the diplomats that were stationed in Cuba and lost their hearing, apparently due to some very high frequency sounds. Apparently those frequencies were generated by metal dome tweeters. The highs break up above what most consider the upper limits of human hearing so they just produced sounds about that frequency and let that " break up " do the rest. Crazy
@willemj I hope it isn't dying. The resurgence of vinyl combined with cheaper bandwidth and data storage allow for higher quality digital recordings where mp3 was the norm. The baby boomers are going to impact every aspect of every market because of the population size. What has changed is how people listen to music. It no longer has to be sitting in front of speakers or tied to a large component unless you're listening to vinyl. Music listening is mobile and I think there are more people listening to music because of that than ever before.
@defiantboomerang I wouldn't worry about beryllium's toxicity in speakers. The speaker mfgs like Persona and Focal use a shield over them to ensure a kid doesn't go poke them open and inhale the dust.
This is a side note: extrapolating from your post one would think that audiophilia will die with baby boomers. It is an interesting hypothesis and I feel that it contains more than just a nugget of truth.
I don't actually have a problem with smile shaped FR curves, as they are ideal for low-volume listening. I also don't have a problem with buyers who like a particular flavor of speaker.
Notice what JA likes is more than a smile, but a hype curve. The selective exaggeration of a couple of bands in the treble, and suppression of others, and then JA has the nerve to call neutral speakers "colored."
Of course, buy what you like. Enjoy what you like, but the "High End" sound as promoted by JA is a very particular set of colors.
The market largely consists of elderly white men with degenerated hearing who claim to have golden ears. It is ironic indeed, but the result of this combination is that the market is now gutted with overly bright speakers that are tiring to listen to.
LOL The author is entirely correct about smiley EQ curve speakers with the standard industry midrange scoop ....however this is INDUSTRY WIDE - you can hardly blame Stereophile or JA for what consumers want and buy in huge quantities. Junk food is bad for you too but people love it and but it in large quantity! This has been called mid scoop or BBC dip but it is highly prevalent - B&W dominate this style sound.
If you don’t like industry standard smiley EQ (presumably because you don’t yet need hearing aids) then get ATC which are flat (but actually sound midrange forward compared to most everything else.)
+1 Exactly how I read JA last paragraph. Full of euphemistic BS whenever the POS SOTA ultra expensive audio jewellry measured performance is poor in certain aspects. He is also careful not to compare products and be overly enthusiastic when performance in a reasonable price product is exceptional - usually just saying he is impressed. After all a reviewing magazine needs advertising revenue and cooperation from the industry - so it can't pick winners and it's job is to cheer on every latest product. So kudos that JA still manages to convey his views to those who are discerning enough to translate that last paragraph.
You are correct. The cost of the speaker is no reflection on the quality - especially the tweeter.
The Excel Millenium Sonotex soft done tweeter has the best waterfall I have seen. It is expensive at around 200 euros per unit and therefore very few manufacturers use it.
Since most speakers are fairly good in frequency response the waterfall plot plot is far and above the most important speaker measurement. Another key plot is the dispersion horizontally.
Unfortunately not many folks understand the importance.
In a publishing universe of almost completely subjective waffle without facts I like JA's measurements and graphs. I have learned to read his prose very carefully, and ignore the commercial talk. The amplifier measurements with a simulated real load are particularly revealing, I find. Fortunately there are a few other international publications with fact based reviews.
Wow, that Alexx waterfall plot is a disaster. It’s too bad you didn’t link to the actual measurements page where in the last (useless) paragraph where JA (if he needs to completely ignores the measurements and) blows sunshine up the manufacturer’s butt, even he has to grudgingly note how bad the waterfall plot is.
I wouldn't call them the best... but I would call them among the very best. :)
Implementation and room matter a great deal too, but I absolutely agree they are among a small, stratified set of tweeters that should sit at the top of the hierarchy.
Sounds way too much like work. Buy whatever you’d like to listen to, but I’ve never seen specs or heard a micro-motor tweet perform as well as mid-grade tweets from SB, ScanSpeak, Seas or even Peerless.
There is a popular ring radiator from ScanSpeak ScanSpeak Discovery R2604/8320 (and a relatively lesser Peerless variant) that has been used by Magico, YG, Krell and Sonus Faber. I put that tweeter against any micro motor tweeter I’ve ever heard.
Also, the ScanSpeak Be that is the basis for the current Magico Be/Graphene tweeter is also far better sounding and measuring.
Does seem one poster has no idea what a TAD driver is http://www.technicalaudiodevices.com/pro-hf-units/ and he seems to suggest vintage doesn't perform as well as modern I suggest he point me towards a BE equipped modern driver with better specs than a TAD?
Micro-motor tweeters are just tweeters with the bare minimum motors to work. Focal as well as B&W are proponents of this approach. The motor is no wider than the dome and usually less than half an inch thick.
Despite assertions otherwise, popular micro-motors measure terribly across distortion, frequency and lack of linearity, regardless of material used.
They are routinely outclassed by relatively inexpensive models from popular driver vendors.
I worry that people will accidentally stick their fingers into the tweeters of those precious Magicos…and according to at least one guy who sells them it seems that's not such rare a thing. My fragile aluminum-magnesium tweeters are covered by a mesh screen so have another drink cousin Shirley! Just don't knock the damn speakers over.
shadorne, I dunno if what they say is accurate but it does seem to be a pretty good summary - I'm not a dome kinda guy (Maggies) - tho if someone offered me a free pair of Sonus Faber Aida's I could be persuaded to switch.
A - The 936 is not very clean B - It has the Focal 100 Hz dip in impedance, which makes the speakers seem more "discerning" of various amplifiers. In some cases this is done artificially in the crossover.
Interesting link. I think they sum it up very well. Be is better in the very top octave than Aluminium or Titanium (10 to 20 KHz)
Note that on the plots Be is not necessarily the best from 3 to 10KHz (the really important range musically for the tweeter). This is the point I am trying to make about internally damped drivers - better performance over a narrower frequency range. If the sound from 10KHz to 20KHz is most important to you then Be is the way to go (at the expense of more resonance at 3KHz to 10KHz)
As as far as I am concerned there is not so much musically in the 10K to 20KHz range - so I prefer a tweeter that performs better from 3KHz to 10 KHz.
Obviously some implementations are better than other. My statement pertains to the problem of lack of internal damping in most metallic drivers (magnesium being perhaps a notable exception).
I count 5 resonances on the Focal Aria tweeter lasting up to 1.5 msec. These resonances are much much longer than the wavelength of the sounds that tweeter emits (an eternity in terms of PRAT) and will definitely color the sound in the way I described.
The resonances are multiple as a rigid disc has multiple resonant modes. I know this for sure as I have large collection of Sabian, Zildjian and Paiste cymbals and they shimmer with all kinds of non harmonic tones. A cymbal is an exaggerated example but the same principle stands.
If you want to hear musical timbre you need a driver that is critically damped - being inert it just gets out of the way once the desired movement is executed.
2 msec of waterfall hash on the first example I gave is really going to affect everything: the timbre of transients on percussive instruments (twang of guitar strings) to the articulation of sbilance on vocals.
The high but very narrow or sharp resonance peaks sometimes seen on JA plots is something to do with his measurement setup - you can ignore those - they look too narrow to be real effects.
FWIW the best waterfall plot I have seen, apart from the one on the Joseph Audio speaker linked above, is on a Quad electrostatic. So for those people who can hear what a difference a good electrostic speaker makes audibly in timbre then you can appreciate how a rigid tweeter can be coloring the sound in the way I describe.
Completely ignoring the point and instead demonstrating some odd ideology that isn't mat-sci. The notable aspect about Stereophile measurement is the result is system based, which I do not know if the Seas is the same and can not be compared. What does it mean? The decay energy being seen isn't just from the tweeter, but the interactions being produced by the system. This includes the mid driver, which the review states wasn't well isolated and was the source to the decay energy seen here. In order to have a clean plot, obviously the driver needs come to a rest as quickly and cleanly as possible. Energy that isn't well damped through the basket, the interface between the basket and the baffle, the baffle, behind the driver, and from other drivers will show in the plot. So your in a system and the diaphragm material plays a part, but in this test, its demonstrated to be more than itself as being the cause of the delayed decay.
Now where a well damped diaphragm material has its advantage is when you do happen to hit a resonance in the operating range, the material itself will reduce the level through internal damping. As you pointed on the Focal tests, the Ti driver performance wasn't good but the Be is better. Did you even note that Ti has much better internal dampening than Al or Be? So it isn't the material selection in this case, but issues with the system instead. Any material can be tripped by poor design. Use a material, work within its constraint, and spend a greater effort in design over material selection.
As for the Kef, I believe that small notch in the treble may have something to do with the tangerine wave guide they use. Seems to be a solution compromise to the fairly wide and even dispersion in the upper treble. A number of speakers fall off to the sides, which make room balance a slight bit more of an effort to get right. If you look at the dispersion of it, the Reference 5, or the Blade 2, they all exhibit the same trait and treble radiation smoothness. Though right above 16khz, the sound field has less smoothing and is the point were we see that notch. They even use somewhat differing materials as the upper series use a Al-Li-Mg alloy. My guess is being the mathematical point in its physical design of that wave guide as its highly linear.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
